Does divinity of Christ suffered? or feel hungry..pain..thirsty?What is the OO explanation about that? and the EO?

I think OOs would say that Natures do not perform actions; they are simply states of being. We would say actions are functions of Hypostases. So we would not say it was Christ's divinity that performed miracles, but rather it was Christ himself who, by virtue of having the Divine Nature, performed miracles. Likewise, we would not say it was Christ's humanity that felt hunger thirst and pain, but Christ himself who, by virtue of having the Human Nature, felt hunger, pain and thirst.

Nevertheless above this too do we say that the union is in the case of Emmanuel. For it were necessary that the soul united thereto should grieve along with its own body, that so, fleeing the disgrace, it might submit a tractable neck to God. But of God the Word, it were absurd to say that He were co-percipient of the contumelies (for free from passion is the Godhead and not in our condition), yet has He been united to flesh possessed of a reasonable soul, and when it suffered, He was impassibly in cognizance of what befell it and brought to naught as God the infirmities of the flesh, yet made them His own as belonging to His own Body: thus is He said both to hunger and be weary and suffer for us.

Nevertheless above this too do we say that the union is in the case of Emmanuel. For it were necessary that the soul united thereto should grieve along with its own body, that so, fleeing the disgrace, it might submit a tractable neck to God. But of God the Word, it were absurd to say that He were co-percipient of the contumelies (for free from passion is the Godhead and not in our condition), yet has He been united to flesh possessed of a reasonable soul, and when it suffered, He was impassibly in cognizance of what befell it and brought to naught as God the infirmities of the flesh, yet made them His own as belonging to His own Body: thus is He said both to hunger and be weary and suffer for us.

Someon can tell me what this mean?

Thanks for all responses.

Pretty sure that means that the suffering does not take place in the divinity of the Godhead, but can be said to apply to the divinity (which is ultimately impassible) because of the incarnate Word being both God and man, or as the text said making them his own since they belonged to his body.

Does divinity of Christ suffered? or feel hungry..pain..thirsty?What is the OO explanation about that? and the EO?

I think OOs would say that Natures do not perform actions; they are simply states of being. We would say actions are functions of Hypostases. So we would not say it was Christ's divinity that performed miracles, but rather it was Christ himself who, by virtue of having the Divine Nature, performed miracles. Likewise, we would not say it was Christ's humanity that felt hunger thirst and pain, but Christ himself who, by virtue of having the Human Nature, felt hunger, pain and thirst.

Hope that helped.

I'll confess I am no expert, but that sounds pretty Orthodox (from an EO angle) to me.

I'll confess I am no expert, but that sounds pretty Orthodox (from an EO angle) to me.

As long as it doesn't mean that his humanity was affected, but the Logos destroyed the infirmity, but the Logos then overrode the destruction by manual incarnation protocol XV892 in order to be affected, I agree.

Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm

if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? [...] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron." - Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria (of blessed memory), The Nature of Christ